`
`
`
`
`
`MURPHY & BUCHAL LLP
`JAMES L. BUCHAL, OSB No. 921618
`3425 SE Yamhill Street, Suite 100
`Portland, OR 97214
`Telephone: (503) 227-1011
`Facsimile (503) 573-1939
`jbuchal@mbllp.com
`
`BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC
`BRADLEY A. BENBROOK*
`STEPHEN M. DUVERNAY*
`400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2530
`Sacramento, CA 95814
`Telephone: (916) 447-4900
`Facsimile: (916) 447-4904
`brad@benbrooklawgroup.com
`steve@benbrooklawgroup.com
`
`*Pro hac vice applications to be submitted
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Great Northern Resources, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF OREGON
`
`PORTLAND DIVISION
`
`
`
` Case No.:
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY,
`INJUNCTIVE, OR OTHER RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GREAT NORTHERN RESOURCES, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`KATY COBA, in her Official Capacity as State
`Chief Operating Officer and Director of the
`OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
`ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES; OREGON
`DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE
`SERVICES; THE CONTINGENT; and DOES
`1-10,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-01866-IM Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 2 of 15
`
`Plaintiff Great Northern Resources, Inc. complains of Defendants Katy Coba, in her
`
`official capacity as Chief Operating Officer and Director of the Oregon Department of
`
`Administrative Services; Oregon Department of Administrative Services; and The Contingent and
`
`alleges:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Great Northern Resources, Inc. (“Great Northern”) brings this lawsuit to
`
`challenge the constitutionality of the State of Oregon’s use of strict race-based criteria for
`
`distributing money from the Oregon Cares Fund for Black Relief and Resiliency (the “Fund”), a
`
`$62-million dollar grant program established by the Oregon Legislature to provide financial relief
`
`to individuals and businesses that have been adversely impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic.
`
`Grants from the Fund are only available to individuals and business owners who “self-identify as
`
`Black.” This express use of race in distributing government money is unprecedented and blatantly
`
`unconstitutional.
`
`2.
`
`Great Northern is a small, family-run logging company based in Eastern Oregon
`
`that harvests salvage timber and sells it to a local mill. Like many small businesses around the
`
`state – and around the country – Great Northern’s business has suffered as a result of the
`
`pandemic. Just when Great Northern was preparing its first timber delivery of the year, the local
`
`mill stopped making new log purchases due to the uncertainty of the future markets for lumber.
`
`Great Northern’s timber has dried, cracked, and is not in condition to be sold to the mill.
`
`3.
`
`After more than seven months of slow operations, the company has exhausted its
`
`modest operating capital reserves and its revenue is far eclipsed by costs and expenses. Great
`
`Northern estimates that the mill’s closure and subsequent moratorium on buying timber cost the
`
`business $100,000, and the company projects a $200,000 loss for the year because of the
`
`pandemic’s continuing economic effects.
`
`4.
`
`The pandemic’s harm to Great Northern should qualify it to compete in any
`
`government-aid program for businesses that have been affected by Covid-19. And yet the
`
`company is ineligible to receive a grant from the Fund because its owner is not Black.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`-1-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-01866-IM Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 3 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`5.
`
`This is unconstitutional. By distributing government benefits on the basis of race,
`
`Oregon has violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “[D]istinctions
`
`between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people
`
`whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” Adarand Constructors, Inc. v.
`
`Peña, 515 U.S. 200, 214 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). Despite the Equal Protection
`
`Clause’s unmistakable command of racial neutrality, Oregon has established a relief fund that is
`
`off limits for anyone who does not “self-identify as Black.” This “discriminatory classification
`
`prevent[s] [Great Northern] from competing on an equal footing” with other applicants. Id. at 211
`
`(quoting Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. Jacksonville, 508 U.S.
`
`656, 667 (1993)).
`
`6.
`
`As set forth below, defendants’ conduct likewise violates federal antidiscrimination
`
`law, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
`
`7.
`
`Accordingly, Great Northern seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate
`
`the state’s use of race as an essential factor in the grant process.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This case raises questions under the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. §
`
`1983, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d). This Court has
`
`jurisdiction over all claims for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Assignment to the Portland
`
`Division is appropriate because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred
`
`in Multnomah County, where Defendant The Contingent is headquartered.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. section 1391(b).
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Great Northern Resources, Inc. is a corporation organized under Oregon
`
`law.
`
`11.
`
`Defendant Katy Coba is the Chief Operating Officer and Director of the Oregon
`
`Department of Administrative Services (“DAS”). Defendant DAS is the central administrative
`
`agency of the Oregon state government, which implements the policy and financial decisions made
`
`by the Governor and Oregon Legislature. Or. Rev. Stat. § 184.305; see Oregon Dep’t of Admin.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-01866-IM Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 4 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Servs., Administrative Overview (Jan. 2014). DAS is responsible for overseeing the State’s
`
`management and distribution of funds received from the Federal government through the
`
`Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act’s $150 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund. As
`
`COO and Director of DAS, Coba is responsible for managing and coordinating DAS’ programs
`
`and operations, including the grant program and Fund that is the subject of this litigation. Coba is
`
`sued in her official capacity.
`
`12.
`
`Defendant The Contingent is a Portland-based nonprofit corporation organized
`
`under Oregon law. As set forth in further detail below, for all relevant purposes The Contingent
`
`has acted jointly with the State of Oregon and Defendant DAS by administering the Fund such that
`
`it is a state actor and has been acting under color of state law.
`
`13.
`
`The true names or capacities – whether individual, corporate, associate, or
`
`otherwise – of the Defendants named herein as Does 1-10, are presently unknown to Plaintiff, and
`
`are therefore sued by these fictitious names. Plaintiff prays for leave to amend this Complaint to
`
`show the true names or capacities of these Defendants if and when they have been determined.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A.
`
`The Oregon Legislature Established The Fund To Provide Coronavirus Relief Grants
`On The Basis Of Race.
`
`14.
`
`On July 14, 2020, the Oregon Legislature’s Joint Emergency Board approved a $62
`
`million grant to establish the Fund, using money allocated to the State by the Federal government
`
`in the CARES Act’s $150 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund. The Fund is a grant program overseen
`
`by DAS and administered by two Oregon-based community organizations (The Contingent and the
`
`Black United Fund of Oregon) that are responsible for reviewing applications and making funding
`
`decisions.
`
`15.
`
`DAS is “responsible for transmitting the [grant] funds and working with The
`
`Contingent on ensuring that federal spending, reporting, and other legal requirements are met,
`
`including that the funds are expended by December 30, 2020.” Exhibit 1, Oregon State Leg. Joint
`
`Emergency Bd., Leg. Fiscal Office Analysis, Agenda Item 3: Oregon Cares Fund for Black Relief
`
`and Resiliency (July 14, 2020) (“Cares Fund Agenda Report”), at p. 2.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-01866-IM Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 5 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`16.
`
`The Contingent is the recipient of the $62 million grant from DAS and is the
`
`organization responsible for managing business grants from the Fund. The Black United Fund of
`
`Oregon is responsible for managing grants to individuals from the Fund.
`
`17.
`
`The Fund is explicitly targeted at providing relief to the “Black community,” to
`
`support “Black relief and resiliency.” Ex. 1, Cares Fund Agenda Report at p. 1. To be eligible for
`
`relief funds, individuals, families, and businesses must (1) live in or be based in Oregon, (2)
`
`demonstrate hardship due to COVID-19, and (3) “self-identify as Black.” Id. Likewise,
`
`community-based non-profits are eligible for funds if they can demonstrate a significant tie to the
`
`Black community, which includes having an “[o]rganizational environment [that] is Black-focused
`
`and [being] recognized by the community served as a Black-serving organization,” and at least
`
`33% of the staff and a majority of the organization’s leadership must be Black. Id. Individuals
`
`and families are eligible to receive grants up to $3,000, and businesses and community-based non-
`
`profits can receive up to $100,000 in grants. Id.
`
`18.
`
`As part of the application process, individuals, families, and businesses seeking
`
`grants from the Fund must state whether they “identify” as Black – and funding decisions are
`
`based on whether applicants satisfy this threshold criteria.
`
`19.
`
`Consistent with restrictions imposed by the federal government through the CARES
`
`Act, all funds allocated to the grant program must be expended by December 30, 2020. Cares
`
`Fund Agenda Report at p. 2.
`
`20
`
`B.
`
`Great Northern Applies For A Coronavirus Relief Grant From The Fund.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`20.
`
`Logging is an important business in Oregon. The State boasts 5 of the 10 largest
`
`sawmills (by volume of sawn wood) in the country. Oregon leads the nation in softwood lumber
`
`production, plywood production, and engineered wood. Sixty-five percent of Grant County in
`
`Eastern Oregon is classified as forestland, and twenty percent of county residents have forest
`
`sector jobs.
`
`21.
`
`Great Northern is a small, family-run logging company based in Grant County. It
`
`was founded in 1991. The focus of Great Northern’s business is selective harvesting and timber
`
`salvage – along with thinning and fuel reduction – on privately-owned and federally-managed
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-01866-IM Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 6 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`lands in Grant County, and then selling merchantable timber to local sawmills. Salvage logging is
`
`the practice of harvesting dead, dying, diseased, or down timber, which is essential to responsible
`
`and sustainable forest management.
`
`22.
`
`Around the time Great Northern was preparing its first delivery of the year in
`
`March 2020, the local mill stopped making new log purchases because of uncertainty in the timber
`
`market induced by the pandemic. By the time the mill started buying again several months later,
`
`Great Northern’s timber had dried and cracked, and was not in condition to be sold to the mill.
`
`(Unlike fresh timber that can sit for six months or more before being processed and cut into
`
`lumber, salvage logs have a short life span before they crack.)
`
`23.
`
`Like many small businesses around the state, Great Northern’s business has
`
`suffered during the pandemic. After over seven months of slow operations, the company has
`
`exhausted its modest operating capital reserves and company revenue is far eclipsed by its costs
`
`and expenses. Great Northern estimates that the mill’s closure and subsequent moratorium on
`
`buying timber cost the business $100,000.
`
`24.
`
`Over the past few months, Great Northern has applied to several government-relief
`
`programs to mitigate the impact of the pandemic, but so far it has received no financial assistance.
`
`25.
`
`In April 2020, Great Northern applied for a grant of up to $10,000 from the U.S.
`
`Small Business Administration’s economic injury disaster loan program. The SBA denied the
`
`company’s application. Great Northern submitted a second application to the SBA, which was
`
`also denied.
`
`26.
`
`In connection with its grant applications, the SBA informed Great Northern that it
`
`could obtain a loan from the SBA’s COVID-19 EIDL program, but the company declined because
`
`it decided it would be too risky to take on debt given the uncertain economic outlook.
`
`27.
`
`On September 24, 2020, Great Northern applied for an emergency grant through the
`
`Greater Eastern Oregon Development Corporation. The application was denied. Great Northern
`
`resubmitted an application to the program on October 19, 2020. As of this filing, Great Northern
`
`has not received a response to its second application.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`-5-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-01866-IM Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 7 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`28.
`
`On October 4, 2020, Great Northern submitted a grant application to the Fund
`
`through the Contingent’s website. As part of the application, Great Northern described the
`
`pandemic’s impact on its business, including the effect of the mill closure and moratorium
`
`discussed above.
`
`29.
`
`Great Northern also submitted financial details showing that its revenue had
`
`dropped from approximately $150,000 in 2019 to less than $30,000 in 2020, and that the company
`
`projected a loss of approximately $200,000 for the year.
`
`30.
`
`Finally, the application asked: “What percentage of owners of this business identify
`
`as Black?” Great Northern answered “0.”
`
`31.
`
`According to the Contingent, the earliest Great Northern will receive a response is
`
`October 31. But that response will be a denial: Great Northern is ineligible for a grant because its
`
`owner isn’t Black. Great Northern brings this suit now, however, because it has sustained an
`
`injury-in-fact by being forced to compete in a race-based system for government benefits. See
`
`Adarand Constructors, 515 U.S. at 211; Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors
`
`of Am., 508 U.S. at 666. Furthermore, time is of the essence because all funds in the grant
`
`program must be expended by December 30.
`
`C.
`
`Defendants’ Use Of Race To Distribute Grants From The Fund Violates The Equal
`Protection Clause And Federal Antidiscrimination Law.
`
`32.
`
`The Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause provides that, “No State shall
`
`. . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const., Amdt.
`
`14, § 1.
`
`33.
`
`“[T]he central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate racial
`
`discrimination emanating from official sources in the States.” Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S.
`
`Ct. 855, 867 (2017) (quoting McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 192 (1964)). “Laws that
`
`explicitly distinguish between individuals on racial grounds fall within the core of [the Fourteenth
`
`Amendment’s] prohibition.” Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 642 (1993). “‘[A]t the heart of the
`
`Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection lies the simple command that the Government must
`
`treat citizens as individuals, not as simply components of a racial, religious, sexual or national
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`-6-
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-01866-IM Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 8 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`class.’” Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 730 (2007)
`
`(plurality opinion of Roberts, C.J.) (quoting Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 911 (1995)) (internal
`
`citation omitted). Put simply, “[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are
`
`by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of
`
`equality.” Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 517 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`34.
`
`“[O]ne form of injury under the Equal Protection Clause is being forced to compete
`
`in a race-based system that may prejudice [a] plaintiff.” Parents Involved, 551 U.S. at 719
`
`(plurality opinion of Roberts, C.J.) (citing Adarand Constructors, 515 U.S. at 211; and
`
`Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors of Am., 508 U.S. at 666).
`
`35.
`
`“[A]ll racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local
`
`governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny.” Adarand
`
`Constructors, 515 U.S. at 227. Under strict scrutiny, the government has the burden of proving
`
`that racial classifications “are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental
`
`interests.” Id. “The reasons for strict scrutiny are familiar. Racial classifications raise special
`
`fears that they are motivated by an invidious purpose. Thus, [the Supreme Court has] admonished
`
`time and again that, ‘[a]bsent searching judicial inquiry into the justification for such race-based
`
`measures, there is simply no way of determining . . . what classifications are in fact motivated by
`
`illegitimate notions of racial inferiority or simple racial politics.’” Johnson v. California, 543 U.S.
`
`499, 505–06 (2005) (quoting City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 493 (1989)).
`
`36.
`
`Defendants’ use of race as the qualifying factor in distributing grants from the Fund
`
`fails strict scrutiny. It is not based on a compelling interest, nor is it narrowly tailored. Aderand,
`
`515 U.S. at 227.
`
`37.
`
`The Supreme Court has stated repeatedly that addressing past societal
`
`discrimination is not a compelling interest. “[G]eneralized assertion[s]” of discrimination cannot
`
`justify remedial race-based action because they “provide[] no guidance for a legislative body to
`
`determine the precise scope of the injury it seeks to remedy. It ‘has no logical stopping point.’”
`
`J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. at 498 (quoting Wygant v. Jackson Bd. Of Educ., 476 U.S. 267, 275
`
`(1986)). Likewise, “[a] generalized assertion of past discrimination in a particular . . . region is not
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`-7-
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-01866-IM Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 9 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`adequate because it ‘provides no guidance for a legislative body to determine the precise scope of
`
`the injury it seeks to remedy.’” Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 909 (1996) (citation omitted); see
`
`also J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. at 499 (“an amorphous claim” of past discrimination insufficient to
`
`justify race-based quota system). Rather, the Equal Protection Clause requires the government to
`
`identify discrimination with specificity, have actual evidence of discrimination that demonstrates
`
`race-based action is necessary, and tailor any race-conscious action to that discrimination. Shaw,
`
`517 U.S. at 909; see also J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. at 500, 504.
`
`38.
`
`But the Oregon Legislature did precisely what the Supreme Court has said it cannot
`
`do: It established the Fund based upon claims of generalized discrimination. The Joint
`
`Emergency Board’s scant legislative record focuses broadly on general notions of past and present
`
`societal discrimination. See Multnomah County Board of County Commissioners, Letter in
`
`Support of The Oregon Cares Fund (July 10, 2020) (arguing that “Oregon’s (and the country’s)
`
`racist history has created a present in which Black Oregonians have been disproportionately
`
`impacted by the COVID pandemic,” and claiming that “The Oregon Cares Fund would address
`
`this disproportionate impact by providing direct funding to Black individuals and families, Black-
`
`led businesses, and Black-owned organizations.”); Washington County Administrative Office,
`
`Letter RE: Emergency funding for the Oregon Cares Fund for Black Relief and Resiliency (July
`
`13, 2020) (“We join the call for accountability and concrete change to end racial injustice and the
`
`brutality that it gives rise to. We support the movement to dismantle systemic racism. We know
`
`that systemic racism contributes to economic, social, and health disparities that directly impact our
`
`county. [¶] We must, therefore, become an active part of the remedy. We are writing to
`
`respectfully urge you to support the Funding of the Oregon Cares Fund for Black Relief and
`
`Resiliency.”).
`
`39.
`
`The legislative analysis briefly mentions that “National and state data show that the
`
`Black community is one of the communities experiencing a disproportionate share of negative
`
`economic and health effects due to COVID-19,” referencing a single draft report from the National
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`-8-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-01866-IM Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 10 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Bureau of Economic Research. Ex. 1, Cares Fund Agenda Report, at p. 1.1 Even accepting as
`
`true the unfortunate circumstance that members of the Black community have been
`
`disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, this is not a form of “discrimination” that can be
`
`remedied by a race-based program. In any event, the promoters of the Fund tied this disparate
`
`impact from the pandemic to generalized conditions by asserting that the pandemic has
`
`“widen[ed]” pre-existing “gaps” due to “400 years” of prior generalized discrimination within
`
`society. “[R]emedying past societal discrimination does not justify race-conscious government
`
`action.” Parents Involved, 551 U.S. at 731 (opinion of Roberts, C.J.); Shaw, 517 U.S. at 909–910
`
`(“[A]n effort to alleviate the effects of societal discrimination is not a compelling interest”); see
`
`also Wygant, 476 U.S. at 276 (plurality opinion) (“Societal discrimination, without more, is too
`
`amorphous a basis for imposing a racially classified remedy.”); id. at 288 (opinion of O’Connor,
`
`J.) (agreeing with plurality that “a governmental agency’s interest in remedying ‘societal’
`
`discrimination . . . cannot be deemed sufficiently compelling to pass constitutional muster under
`
`strict scrutiny”).
`
`40.
`
`In fact, the materials presented to the legislature confirm that the Fund was
`
`motivated by a general desire to remedy past societal discrimination, which is not constitutionally
`
`permissible. Yet the Fund’s proponents put general societal discrimination front and center in the
`
`materials they submitted to the Joint Emergency Board:
`
`The Black community across Oregon is in the midst of two pandemics. The first is
`this country’s 400 years of racial violence and strategic divestment from the Black
`community, deepened here in Oregon through intentional policy and practice.
`More recently, it is the Covid-19 pandemic that is widening the gaps between the
`average white Oregonian and the average Black Oregonian. This gap must be
`narrowed through targeted investment in our community—for Black people, for
`Black-owned businesses, and for Black community based organizations. And
`that narrowing includes The Oregon Cares Fund. The Oregon Cares Fund
`(TOCF) is a $62 million targeted investment in the Black community from the
`CARES Act’s Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF).
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`The report is Robert W. Fairlie, NBER Working Paper 27309, The Impact of COVID-19
`On Small Business Owners: Evidence of Early-Stage Losses From The April 2020 Current
`Population Survey, Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Research (June 2020), online at
`https://www.nber.org/papers/w27309.pdf.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`-9-
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-01866-IM Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 11 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Historic Disparities
`
`The myriad of issues requiring remedy prior to and exacerbated by the COVID-19
`pandemic are institutional, and cannot be mitigated through one singular effort or
`fund. Black people began this pandemic far behind the average Oregonian whether
`it is in health, education, or economic prosperity. . . . Immediate intervention is
`necessary to enable the Black community to meet basic needs and help us begin to
`chart a course for our collective recovery.
`
`Exhibit 2, Oregon State Leg. Joint Emergency Bd., July 14, 2020 Meeting Materials, Ex. 9,
`
`Testimony – The Oregon Cares Fund, The Oregon Cares Fund: A Fund For Black Relief And
`
`Resiliency, p. 3 of exhibit (labeled as page 8) (emphasis in original).
`
`41.
`
`Because Oregon did not link the grant program to specific, “identified
`
`discrimination,” Defendants cannot establish that the program furthers a compelling state interest –
`
`and it is therefore “almost impossible” to conduct a narrow-tailoring inquiry. J.A. Croson Co., 488
`
`U.S. at 507. The Legislature’s superficial analysis confirms that Defendants cannot meet their
`
`burden of showing that the use of race to distribute grants is narrowly tailored. Among other
`
`things, narrow tailoring requires “serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral
`
`alternatives.” Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 206, 339 (2003); see also J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S.
`
`at 507 (minority set-aside program was not narrowly tailored in part because city had not
`
`considered “the use of race-neutral means” to achieve its interest); Wygant, 476 U.S. at 280 n.6
`
`(plurality opinion) (noting that the term “narrowly tailored” “require[s] consideration” of “lawful
`
`alternative and less restrictive means”). But here, the Oregon Legislature gave no consideration of
`
`race-neutral alternatives – it just established a grant program that is reserved for members of a
`
`particular race.
`
`42.
`
`This record demonstrates that Defendants’ use of race as a basis for eligibility for
`
`Fund grants cannot satisfy strict scrutiny. The Legislature failed to identify discrimination with
`
`specificity and failed to develop a “strong basis in evidence” before taking race-conscious action.
`
`Shaw, 517 U.S. at 909. The legislative record shows that the Fund is an attempt to address general
`
`societal discrimination. Accordingly, the use of race as the basis for distributing grants from the
`
`Fund violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection guarantee.
`
`* * *
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`-10-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-01866-IM Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 12 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`43.
`
`As set forth above, DAS is the agency responsible for implementing the Fund,
`
`which included transmitting $62 million in federal relief funds to the Contingent to establish the
`
`Fund, and “working with The Contingent on ensuring that federal spending, reporting, and other
`
`legal requirements are met.” Ex. 1, Cares Fund Agenda Report at p. 2. This includes ensuring that
`
`the Fund satisfy the Oregon Legislature’s directive that grant recipients meet the “[s]pecific
`
`requirement[]” that they “self-identify as Black.” Id. at p. 1.
`
`44.
`
`The Contingent was jointly engaged with DAS to administer the Fund and charged
`
`by the Oregon Legislature to distribute grants on the condition that recipients “self-identify as
`
`Black.” The Contingent is therefore liable as a state actor for the purposes of 42 U.S.C.
`
`section 1983 because the Oregon Legislature “create[d] the legal framework governing [the
`
`Contingent’s] conduct,” “delegate[d] [the State’s] authority” to the Contingent to deploy race-
`
`based classifications when overseeing the Fund, and generally “provided a mantle of authority” to
`
`the Contingent such that the organization was acting as the state itself when distributing grants
`
`from the Fund. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 192 (1988).
`
`45.
`
`For those same reasons, Defendants’ intentional discrimination against Plaintiff
`
`violates federal antidiscrimination law. The Supreme Court has “explained that discrimination that
`
`violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment committed by an institution
`
`that accepts federal funds also constitutes a violation of Title VI [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964].”
`
`Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 276 n.23 (2003). To a similar end, “purposeful discrimination
`
`that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment will also violate [42
`
`U.S.C.] § 1981.” Id.; see also Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 343 (2003) (noting that “the
`
`prohibition against discrimination in § 1981 is co-extensive with the Equal Protection Clause”).
`
`46.
`
`An actual and judicially cognizable controversy exists between Plaintiff and
`
`Defendants regarding whether the Defendants’ use of race as an essential factor in distributing
`
`grants from the Fund violates the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
`
`1964, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiff desires a judicial declaration of its rights and Defendants’
`
`duties regarding the constitutionality of Defendants’ distribution of government benefits on the
`
`basis of race.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`-11-
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-01866-IM Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 13 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (EQUAL PROTECTION)
`
`(As to Defendants Coba and The Contingent)
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates here by reference paragraphs 1 through 46, supra, as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`48.
`
`As set forth above, Defendants, acting under color of state law, have used race as an
`
`essential factor in considering applications and distributing grants from the Fund, i.e., applicants
`
`must “self-identify as Black” to be eligible. By distributing government benefits on the basis of
`
`race, Defendants denied Plaintiff of the opportunity to compete on an equal basis for a coronavirus
`
`relief grant from the Fund, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
`
`Amendment to the Constitution.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`VIOLATION OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d)
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates here by reference paragraphs 1 through 46, supra, as if fully
`
`(As to All Defendants)
`
`set forth herein.
`
`50.
`
`As set forth above, the State of Oregon received funds received from the Federal
`
`government through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act’s $150 billion
`
`Coronavirus Relief Fund, and used those funds to establish the Fund and grant program
`
`administered by Defendants.
`
`51.
`
`Defendants have used race as an essential factor in considering applications and
`
`distributing grants from the Fund, i.e., applicants must “self-identify as Black” to be eligible. By
`
`failing to consider Plaintiff’s grant application on an equal